Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
Anna Kendrick? Meh. Doesn't do much to tone my wood. But Mr. Right was funny.
Anna Kendrick? Meh. Doesn't do much to tone my wood. But Mr. Right was funny.
Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
- Thread starter Artie
- Start date
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
I have no idea why you didn't just start a new thread.
I don't know if I hear a guitar and can say 'oh that is certainly alder'. But I know an alder guitar sounds different through an amp than an alder one. Maybe that just isn't the wood, but does it matter? You either like the sound a guitar makes and you are willing to pay for it, or not. Everything in the chain matters.
I have no idea why you didn't just start a new thread.
I don't know if I hear a guitar and can say 'oh that is certainly alder'. But I know an alder guitar sounds different through an amp than an alder one. Maybe that just isn't the wood, but does it matter? You either like the sound a guitar makes and you are willing to pay for it, or not. Everything in the chain matters.
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
I bet if you did blind testing of wood combinations in guitars of the exact same scale length, hardware and electronics... You'd see that people would not be able to distinguish between certain species of wood.
I'd probably go so far as to say that in blind testing... People probably wouldn't be able to distinguish between the tones of wooden guitars and synthetic materials, either.
I bet if you did blind testing of wood combinations in guitars of the exact same scale length, hardware and electronics... You'd see that people would not be able to distinguish between certain species of wood.
I'd probably go so far as to say that in blind testing... People probably wouldn't be able to distinguish between the tones of wooden guitars and synthetic materials, either.
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
you are right insofar as that people can't say 'That's maple, that's mahogany, that's ash'. But I did a blind test. I made two identical guitars with only the body material being different. Same scale, same frets, same neck (cut from the same billet), same everything. And the difference is very much audible. The ash guitar is so much sharper and more stingy than the maple body version. To say 'that's maple for sure', would be difficult but you CAN hear the difference so it does make sense to selectively select timbers.
I did it the other way around too. Installed the same PG with pickups and neck on different bodies; each was a totally different sound. Even ash vs swamp ash was different (swamp ash is a bit smoother and rounder, ash is a bit tighter and more punch).
I guess that's the perk of being able to build my own guitars.
you are right insofar as that people can't say 'That's maple, that's mahogany, that's ash'. But I did a blind test. I made two identical guitars with only the body material being different. Same scale, same frets, same neck (cut from the same billet), same everything. And the difference is very much audible. The ash guitar is so much sharper and more stingy than the maple body version. To say 'that's maple for sure', would be difficult but you CAN hear the difference so it does make sense to selectively select timbers.
I did it the other way around too. Installed the same PG with pickups and neck on different bodies; each was a totally different sound. Even ash vs swamp ash was different (swamp ash is a bit smoother and rounder, ash is a bit tighter and more punch).
I guess that's the perk of being able to build my own guitars.
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
Your test was not blind, you knew they were two different species of woods, you knew what those woods were and you had expectations that they would sound a certain way. Your test did nothing to eradicate confirmation bias or any inherent biases.
Also, you did not account for within species variation. Perhaps two pieces of Ash would have sounded equally different from one another as either piece would from maple. You cannot say the difference in tone is due to the difference in species.
Basic science.
Your test was not blind, you knew they were two different species of woods, you knew what those woods were and you had expectations that they would sound a certain way. Your test did nothing to eradicate confirmation bias or any inherent biases.
Also, you did not account for within species variation. Perhaps two pieces of Ash would have sounded equally different from one another as either piece would from maple. You cannot say the difference in tone is due to the difference in species.
Basic science.
Clint 55
OH THE DOUBLE THICK GLAZE!
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
I think I would be able to tell. Axspecially if you handed me a micarta guitar. That isn't why people play guitar though - because the sound is passable and sounds okay recorded. People play because it sounds good intuitively and they connect with the nuance of it in 1st person.
I think I would be able to tell. Axspecially if you handed me a micarta guitar. That isn't why people play guitar though - because the sound is passable and sounds okay recorded. People play because it sounds good intuitively and they connect with the nuance of it in 1st person.
some_dude
Raging BB Gunologist
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
I'm going to have to disagree. I don't think I could identify specific species, but I can tell when there's something different under the hood. I've picked up guitars before and noticed they sounded different than normal, then looked at the model to realize it wasn't a standard model.
In one case I picked up what I thought was a solid coloured PRS Custom 24. Guitar seemed to have a bit of an SG vibe, and when I looked at the model I learned it was a PRS Standard 24, which is all mahogany with no maple cap. Solid mahogany guitars just seem to have a sound about them, and it's different from one with a maple cap.
PRS makes this game easy since they produce so many variations of the same basic design and (depending upon where you live) they're widely accessible. 22 fret vs 24 fret, trem vs stop tail, mahogany slab vs maple cap, mahogany vs maple vs rosewood neck, pickguard vs pickup rings, etc. Play enough of them and you start to notice trends.
And IMO, all they are is trends. I think it's impossible to look at a piece of wood and say it's going to produce a specific sound.... but if you play 1000 guitars made out of the same type of wood you'll probably notice a general tonal trend within it's range of sounds.
Same goes for synthetics. There's no reason they can't sound good, and given time I'm sure someone will eventually develop synthetics that reproduce the specific tonal properties of mohogany, maple, rosewood, etc. Or even better, maybe they'll be engineered to produce sounds that are even better than the wood we use today.
Which, if you accepted that last statement means that you also accept that wood imparts it's own tone, otherwise there'd be no way to improve upon it.
I'm going to have to disagree. I don't think I could identify specific species, but I can tell when there's something different under the hood. I've picked up guitars before and noticed they sounded different than normal, then looked at the model to realize it wasn't a standard model.
In one case I picked up what I thought was a solid coloured PRS Custom 24. Guitar seemed to have a bit of an SG vibe, and when I looked at the model I learned it was a PRS Standard 24, which is all mahogany with no maple cap. Solid mahogany guitars just seem to have a sound about them, and it's different from one with a maple cap.
PRS makes this game easy since they produce so many variations of the same basic design and (depending upon where you live) they're widely accessible. 22 fret vs 24 fret, trem vs stop tail, mahogany slab vs maple cap, mahogany vs maple vs rosewood neck, pickguard vs pickup rings, etc. Play enough of them and you start to notice trends.
And IMO, all they are is trends. I think it's impossible to look at a piece of wood and say it's going to produce a specific sound.... but if you play 1000 guitars made out of the same type of wood you'll probably notice a general tonal trend within it's range of sounds.
Same goes for synthetics. There's no reason they can't sound good, and given time I'm sure someone will eventually develop synthetics that reproduce the specific tonal properties of mohogany, maple, rosewood, etc. Or even better, maybe they'll be engineered to produce sounds that are even better than the wood we use today.
Which, if you accepted that last statement means that you also accept that wood imparts it's own tone, otherwise there'd be no way to improve upon it.
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
You've just shot yourself in the foot there.
You're saying in one post that people can't tell differences in tone between guitars with different construction materials......then once its been countered you move your argument and tacitly acknowledge that it is.
The point here is that wood is a contributor to tone. And you are so bad at arguing a point that you've just said it does whilst trying to argue it doesn't........classic!!
You've just shot yourself in the foot there.
You're saying in one post that people can't tell differences in tone between guitars with different construction materials......then once its been countered you move your argument and tacitly acknowledge that it is.
The point here is that wood is a contributor to tone. And you are so bad at arguing a point that you've just said it does whilst trying to argue it doesn't........classic!!
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
The body wood is a part of the system. It maybe no so important as the neck/fretboard wood, but it surely plays its role.
Did it ever happen that one of your guitars sounds meatier, or another one can pronounce the tap harmonics better than the others? Even after various pup swaps? Yup, its the woods that makes the difference.
The body wood is a part of the system. It maybe no so important as the neck/fretboard wood, but it surely plays its role.
Did it ever happen that one of your guitars sounds meatier, or another one can pronounce the tap harmonics better than the others? Even after various pup swaps? Yup, its the woods that makes the difference.
hamerfan
Well-known member
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
A completely new view. A bunch of old wood fans made a blind audition old wood vs new wood. The result was a complete fiasco, not much more than random. The funny thing was the pro player of guitars said he heard a great difference and couldn't believe the result. He said it was so different how the wood reacted on the attack of the strings and also the decay of the tone.
My thoughts are now, the player 'hears' much more of wood tone than it was transfered to the audience or recording medium. Does anyone expect that such subtilities really survive the heavy processing to an mp3 file?
A completely new view. A bunch of old wood fans made a blind audition old wood vs new wood. The result was a complete fiasco, not much more than random. The funny thing was the pro player of guitars said he heard a great difference and couldn't believe the result. He said it was so different how the wood reacted on the attack of the strings and also the decay of the tone.
My thoughts are now, the player 'hears' much more of wood tone than it was transfered to the audience or recording medium. Does anyone expect that such subtilities really survive the heavy processing to an mp3 file?
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
Well the audience couldn't tell you if I'm using a jazz3 or a fender-light,,,,,,,,,but there's a huge difference in play-response.
The tonewood debate always splits in-two.
Some debate it's relevance to the finished product (which for some means a recorded track in the mix) and others to the signal at it's root.
Well the audience couldn't tell you if I'm using a jazz3 or a fender-light,,,,,,,,,but there's a huge difference in play-response.
The tonewood debate always splits in-two.
Some debate it's relevance to the finished product (which for some means a recorded track in the mix) and others to the signal at it's root.
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
I don't know if you've misunderstood my posts or something because I have literally no idea what you're talking about...?
I don't know if you've misunderstood my posts or something because I have literally no idea what you're talking about...?
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
So that my point is clear let me explain it again.
None of us have scientifically investigated this matter. For most people, the experience of say... An alder body... Is tied up in the experience of a 25.5" scale guitar with single coils and a tremolo, whilst our experience of a Mahogany body is tied up with a 24.75" scale, humbuckers and a stop tail bridge. The differences we hear in this case MAY be due to the body wood, or MAY be due to the other factors.
Then sometimes, as in the above example of PRS guitars... The scale length, pickups and hardware are the same. But here, there are still problems. First of all, most of the time you are aware of the difference in wood before you play... And years of marketing exposure mean that you expect a difference. A second problem, is that you are playing only a few examples of each type... This means you cannot confirm a 'better than chance' estimation, and also you cannot discount the difference being within species rather than between species*.
* This is important because if there's as much variation within species as between species, then species is not important.
So ideally here's what you'd do. You'd make a thousand guitars all with the same pickups, hardware, electronics and structural design (set neck or bolt on, same body shape, etc). The only differences would be construction materials. You'd have enough to each combination that you could have a decent sample size of each. You'd account for weight, etc.
Then you'd make some recordings or have them played live. The participant would not know even that they were listening to different guitars. It would be totally blind and random. Maybe you're listening to only 2 guitars, maybe 200... Can you tell?
Then you'd do a statistical analysis on the results to see if they are significant... Whether the results were better than guessing.
This applies to woods and synthetic materials.
As you can imagine, it would be a huge undertaking... And nobody here has even come close with their own experimenting.
So that my point is clear let me explain it again.
None of us have scientifically investigated this matter. For most people, the experience of say... An alder body... Is tied up in the experience of a 25.5" scale guitar with single coils and a tremolo, whilst our experience of a Mahogany body is tied up with a 24.75" scale, humbuckers and a stop tail bridge. The differences we hear in this case MAY be due to the body wood, or MAY be due to the other factors.
Then sometimes, as in the above example of PRS guitars... The scale length, pickups and hardware are the same. But here, there are still problems. First of all, most of the time you are aware of the difference in wood before you play... And years of marketing exposure mean that you expect a difference. A second problem, is that you are playing only a few examples of each type... This means you cannot confirm a 'better than chance' estimation, and also you cannot discount the difference being within species rather than between species*.
* This is important because if there's as much variation within species as between species, then species is not important.
So ideally here's what you'd do. You'd make a thousand guitars all with the same pickups, hardware, electronics and structural design (set neck or bolt on, same body shape, etc). The only differences would be construction materials. You'd have enough to each combination that you could have a decent sample size of each. You'd account for weight, etc.
Then you'd make some recordings or have them played live. The participant would not know even that they were listening to different guitars. It would be totally blind and random. Maybe you're listening to only 2 guitars, maybe 200... Can you tell?
Then you'd do a statistical analysis on the results to see if they are significant... Whether the results were better than guessing.
This applies to woods and synthetic materials.
As you can imagine, it would be a huge undertaking... And nobody here has even come close with their own experimenting.
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
So if I got you to listen to 100 clips of a strat with 100 different ebony fretboards and 100 clips of a strat with 100 different maple fretboards... Guitars otherwise identical... You'd have to be able to correctly categorise each clip with 80%+ accuracy in order to say you did it better than guessing (p = <.05).
You wouldn't have to know which was ebony and which was maple... Just that difference.
Could you be so accurate?
So if I got you to listen to 100 clips of a strat with 100 different ebony fretboards and 100 clips of a strat with 100 different maple fretboards... Guitars otherwise identical... You'd have to be able to correctly categorise each clip with 80%+ accuracy in order to say you did it better than guessing (p = <.05).
You wouldn't have to know which was ebony and which was maple... Just that difference.
Could you be so accurate?
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
https://www.unibw.de/lrt4/mechanik/mitarbeiter/ehem-mitarbeiter/hfleischer/deadspots-en
^^ here is an engineering proof that materials matter. And the electric guitar is made of wood most of the time.
https://www.unibw.de/lrt4/mechanik/mitarbeiter/ehem-mitarbeiter/hfleischer/deadspots-en
^^ here is an engineering proof that materials matter. And the electric guitar is made of wood most of the time.
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
I don't see why I have to spell the obvious out to you.
Try reading it again in context of the posts you made previously.
I don't see why I have to spell the obvious out to you.